Pakistan offers global nuclear fuel services

DaRk WaVe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
809
Likes
97
Well certainly they have more credentials then you
yup, ToI & that Professor knows the exact Location of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons, So when is RAW & CIA contacting the Intelligence Network of ToI & Shuan

Well this is interesting you are happy that your country has given something on nuclear front for which your is country to eat grass (words from your leaders) to achieve it now once achieved just left it if US is saying they are happy with nuke security then there is strong possibility that they are in hands of US.
Why you people think we have given something on Nuclear Front, there are many 'fronts', No one in Pakistan is foolish enough to give the Ultimate Strategic & Deterrence Weapons in hands of United States of America, They Aid in Protection but as the Article posted by JPraveen says

But, the Pakistani official said, "both sides are lying to each other." The information that the Pakistanis handed over was not as complete as the Americans believed. "We haven't told you anything that you don't know," he said. The Americans didn't realize that Pakistan would never cede control of its arsenal: "If you try to take the weapons away, you will fail."
Possibilities are many, People only like to support the 'possibility' that suits them

do you people still believe that Pakistan Offering nuclear fuel services is a bluff?
 
Last edited:

BunBunCake

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
405
Likes
75
what makes you think Pakistan cannot defend its Nuclear Weapons from Terrorists? now you are saying....
I never said they can't.... but since you ask:

"PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR MATERIALS AT GREATEST RISK, REPORT SAYS"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/12/us_pakistan_nuclear

And since you don't trust nitesh's "timesofindia" here's an UK version for you:
"Terrorists 'have attacked Pakistan nuclear sites three times"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6792397.ece

"Greatest nuclear threat is Pakistan"
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/126198_vandyk12.html

"Failed State, Pakistan raises nuclear threat"
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/failed-state-pakistan-raises-nuclear-threat

"10 Dead in deadly attack on Pakistani HQ"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/10/world/main5375901.shtml

am i confusing it
Yes, actually you are. Go look back and see. I never mentioned my 'opinion' in my post.

if you would have read the last article i posted for you, you would have read that theres been Cooperation between US & Pakistan to make Pakistani Nuclear Weapons more secure, here is another one supporting it....

-U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

& why would Pakistan just simply give away everything :lol:
Indeed there is 'cooperation' I agree. That means nothing. What we need is credibility, which you haven't yet proved. Answer me, then we'll see.


Also,
What made you ASSUME I thought Pakistan can't guard it's nuclear weapons?
Just wondering, since I never said such a thing till this point.
Mind quoting my words please?
 
Last edited:

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
yup, ToI & that Professor knows the exact Location of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons, So when is RAW & CIA contacting the Intelligence Network of ToI & Shuan
Cut the crap, if you can refute the comments with certain reports do that.


Why you people think we have given something on Nuclear Front, there are many 'fronts', No one in Pakistan is foolish enough to give the Ultimate Strategic & Deterrence Weapons in hands of United States of America, They Aid in Protection but as the Article posted by JPraveen says

Possibilities are many, People only like to support the 'possibility' that suits them
Oh oh then what else is left to be given? US is killing Pakistanis day in day out from bases in Pakistan/ Afghanistan your army is on rent to US to fight US's war what else is given to US?

do you people still believe that Pakistan Offering nuclear fuel services is a bluff?
Yes it is a bluff On what basis they will provide the service?
 

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
pakistan was the butt of jokes in the summit because of gilanis statement .Pakistanis are seriously good entertainers
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
do you people still believe that Pakistan Offering nuclear fuel services is a bluff?
No its not joke. its clever way of converting black money to white.
 

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
14,104
Likes
63,370
No its a clever way to derail the whole issue, this what they typically do. Pakistani body language is not funny but suggesting its open challenge to nations trying to curb Pakistan's nuclear aspirations. It will be interesting to see how india will have nothing to say after this pakistani challenge to the whole NTP regime. Pakistan is trying to show its teeth, may be practically its not feasible but the effort of deception is there, one must understand.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR FUTURE: REINING IN THE RISK
Henry Sokolski


Sokolski's article is interesting and can be utilized to explore the weakness in US thinking about Pakistan: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB963.pdf

The most commonly discussed demographic threat is known as "youth bulge." This is the period typically before the demographic dividend can be realized when the huge tide of young people has not yet entered the labor market. This creates enormous pressures on the state to provide health, education, and other services. As this population becomes adolescents, the theory holds that single teenage men without the discipline of a good public, private, or military education and without the prospects of employment are more likely to engage in violence directed against the state and other groups in society, or engage in terrorism. Many have looked to the failures of the state education system in Pakistan, for instance, as a primary reason for the greater role madrassahs have played in educating young Pakistanis today. Madrassahs do not necessarily produce terrorists, but they do play a role in proselytizing an anti-modern, anti-Western world view.

There is no guarantee that Pakistan has weathered its period of youth bulge as it transitions to its dividend
period. One recent study has argued that, similar to the aftershocks of an earthquake, "echo booms" reverberate every 2 decades after periods of booming fertility which are followed by a steep decline. This would mean that the number of Pakistanis between


militant recruitment has revolved around the Indo-Pakistani conflict and has taken place out in the open, but since 9/11 it has gone underground and has tended to use anti-U.S. sentiment to motivate new cadres.73 If Pakistan is unable to sustain its economic growth, in part because of rising resource pressures, the country in 2020 could have millions or potentially tens of millions of unemployed young people who have not been properly educated to compete in the globalized economy. This will be a population that came of age during the War on Terror at a time of great antipathy toward the United States. Even if rural areas in Punjab and Sindh remain relatively quietist traditional societies as they have for decades, the increasingly populated cities and the heavily trafficked border regions will have access to networks of influence around the world. The Gulf, with the rising importance of its Sovereign Wealth Funds and growing source of remittances returning to Pakistan, is likely to have a heightened political influence. Today's interconnected world means that vectors of prosperity can quickly become vectors of instability.

Sindhi separatism:


....a series of interventions that culminated in a bitter fight over the imposition of the Two-Unit plan. Political manipulation forced Sindh to accept the plan but "Sindhis were
without an adequate voice to represent their aspirations and concerns."19

"This process was repeated under General Ziaul- Haq's martial law regime (1977-85), but even the second Sindhi Prime Minister, Mohammed Khan Junejo (1985-88), encountered major dissidence in his home province."20 In early 1970s, Prime Minister Z. A. Bhutto had tried to address the Sindhi grievances but he could do little, "perhaps because," explains Wright, "he did not dare antagonize either the army or Punjabi voters on whom he relied for continuance in power." 21 While Sindh has not declared open rebellion against the Pakistani state, tensions continue to fester even today, and resentments have accumulated that flare up frequently in the form of violent confrontation between Sindhis and Muhajirs in Karachi. Indeed Karachi, a huge city and the hub of commerce and trade in Pakistan, presents a special case of interethnic conflict. Economic factors, demographic pressures, and militant Islam have turned Karachi into one of the most unsafe cities in the world.​



What Americans may try to do :


But the model that might work best for Pakistan is a hybrid model that blends regional and multiethnic federalism in an asymmetrical fashion. Hybrid federalism incorporates unitary features that strengthen the state and allow it to exercise an overarching authority within which it can bargain on behalf of the nation as a whole.
The purpose of the overarching authority must be a progressive integration of the Pakistani nation and not the survival of a particular leader or government. While the granting of provincial autonomy is essential, that alone will not suffice. The federal process also needs to remain open-ended in another respect. The empowerment of one ethnic group will create a succession of similar demands from other ethnic groups and minorities. Every new ethnic mobilization needs to be dealt with in a principled manner. This requires creating a political process that permits representation and accommodation. The dangers of an unresponsive state have been amply visible in India's turbulent northeast, where scores of militant movements compete against ethnically based provincial governments.

There are groups that do not make territorial demands. Pakistan contains a number of smaller ethnic and religious groups that have no clearly defined territorial homeland. Several of these groups have seen their rights severely reduced during the long period of Islamist-backed military rule. Among these are the Christian and Hindu minorities, the Ahmediyas and the Shias.35 The latter have been the targets of sustained attacks for decades. Unless their status is restored, several key cities like Karachi and Hyderabad will never know real peace. The federal process therefore needs to be revisited periodically. At all times, the central state needs to be not only neutral and transparent but must scrupulously adhere to canons of fairness.



Pakistan can go down this path in a step-by-step manner, dealing with each new demand as it arises. But this could invite charges of political expediency and manipulation and exacerbate conflict. It therefore has a good deal to learn from the strategy of the linguistic reorganization of the Indian states (provinces) in 1957. The states' reorganization was enacted for the county as a whole. It was accepted despite the fact that it denied the claims of separate statehood to several ethnic minorities because the overwhelming majority of ethnic nationalities found the new federal arrangement acceptable and because the criteria upon which statehood was denied or conceded were transparent and impartially applied. The subsequent struggles in India's northeast illustrate why it is important to keep even this federal arrangement open-ended. The offer of ethno-linguistic autonomy within the framework of a federal Pakistan can become a powerful countermagnet to Islamist nationalism in FATA and NWFP, and even more so in Balochistan, where the struggle for self-determination is mainly of the older variety. Greater regional autonomy will allow Pakistan to isolate these regions, and the benefits that flow from separating Islamic extremism from ethnic dissidence will benefit the whole country. This is because Pakistan's future as a stable state is premised as much on accommodating grievances in Sindh, Karachi, and Punjab as it is on separating ethnic nationalism from religious extremism.
Here is the fundamental failure of understanding of US policy. For the Islamist core of the Pakistan, the fact of that occupation can only be maintained on Islamism. So the rulers of this occupied territory can never let go of their Islamism and can never separate ethnic demands from Islamist militancy.

Only where the "central authority" is no longer "Islamic" in its vision, can this accommodation happen. USA will refuse to see this for a long long time.​
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top